ELİF BAYRAKTAR TELLAN, THE PATRIARCH AND THE SULTAN-THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORITY AND THE QUEST FOR ORDER IN THE EIGHT.-CENT. OTT. EM. İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, Ankara 2011.pdf

8/11/2019 ELF BAYRAKTAR TELLAN, THE PATRIARCH AND THE SULTAN-THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORITY AND THE QUEST FOR

1/311

THE PATRIARCH AND THE SULTAN:

THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORITY AND THE QUEST FOR ORDER

IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY

OTTOMAN EMPIRE

A Ph.D. Dissertation

by

ELF BAYRAKTAR TELLAN

Department of History

hsan DoramacBilkent University

Ankara

June 2011


2/311


3/311

To My Family


4/311

THE PATRIARCH AND THE SULTAN:

THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORITY AND THE QUEST FOR ORDER

IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY

OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

of

hsan DoramacBilkent University

by

ELF BAYRAKTAR TELLAN

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in

THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

HSAN DORAMACI BLKENT UNIVERSITYANKARA

June 2011


5/311

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and inquality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History.

Prof. Dr. zer Ergen Dr. Eugenia Kermeli

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------Supervisor Co-Supervisor


Asst. Prof. Oktay zel

---------------------------------Examining Committee Member


Prof. Dr. Mehmet z



Asst. Prof. Dr. Evgeni Radushev



Associate Prof. Hlya Ta

---------------------------------

Examining Committee Member

Approval of the Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

Prof. Dr. Erdal Erel

---------------------------------Director


6/311

iii

ABSTRACT

THE PATRIARCH AND THE SULTAN: THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORITY

AND THE QUEST FOR ORDER IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY OTTOMAN

EMPIRE

Bayraktar Tellan, ElifPhD, Department of History

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. zer Ergen

Co-Supervisor: Dr. Eugenia Kermeli

June 2011

In the eighteenth century, the Rum Orthodox Patriarchate of Istanbul

underwent a series of changes that were the result of eighteenth-century economic

and social developments in Ottoman society. This study investigates the changing

fortunes of the Patriarchate in the eighteenth century through a contextualization of

these events in their Ottoman background. Despite the conclusions of previous

historiography, the patriarch appears as more than a mere mltezimor a milletba/

ethnarch, functioning instead more as a religious leader of the Ottoman Orthodox

community who acted according to the Ottoman principles of nizam[order] and the

safety of the mal-miri. These two principles were an important part of the discourse

of negotiations between the Patriarchate and the Porte in the eighteenth century, and

were used efficiently by both sides. Many internal and external actors were involved


7/311

iv

in the events, including archons, Catholics, Protestants, the esnaf, and merchants

both Muslim and non-Muslim. A case study of the mid-eighteenth-century Patriarch

Kyrillos V Karakallos demonstrates how one patriarch effectively struggled to

consolidate his authority vis--vishis opponents. Following the patriarchal term of

Karakallos, the system of gerondismos was established, as a result of which the

Patriarchate had come, by 1763, to be represented before the Porte as a collective

identity. Overall, far from being a static entity, the Patriarchate appears to have been

an active subject in the urban setting of the imperial city, engaged in a relationship

with the financial and social networks of Ottoman society.

Keywords: Rum Orthodox Patriarchate of Istanbul, Patriarch, berat, nizam,

eighteenth century, Ottoman history, Kyrillos Karakallos.


8/311

v

ZET

PATRK VE SULTAN: 18. YZYIL OSMANLI

MPARATORLUUNDA OTORTE VE NZAM PENDE

Bayraktar Tellan, Elif

Doktora, Tarih Blm

Tez Yneticisi: Prof. Dr. zer ErgenOrtak Tez Yneticisi: Dr. Eugenia Kermeli

Haziran 2011

stanbul Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi on sekizinci yzyl ortasnda Osmanl

toplumunun ekonomik ve sosyal gelimeleri sonucunda bir takm deiiklikler

geirdi. Bu alma Patrikhanenin geirdii bu deiimi on sekizinci yzyl Osmanl

balamnda inceliyor. nceki almalarn aksine bu almada patrik yalnz bir

mltezim veya bir milletbandan ziyade, nizm ve ml-mrnin ne ktOsmanl

prensipleri dorultusunda ileyen OsmanlRum Ortodoks toplumunun lideri olarak

deerlendiriliyor. Bu iki prensip on sekizinci yzylda Patrikhane ve Osmanl

merkezi ynetimi arasndaki ilikilerde iki taraf tarafndan da etkili bir ekilde

kullanlyordu. Patrikhane evresinde gelien olaylarda Rum toplumunun ileri

gelenlerinin [archon], Katoliklerin, Protestanlarn, Mslman ve gayrimslim esnaf

ve tccarn da yer aldbirok aktr rol oynuyordu. On sekizinci yzyl ortasnda

patriklik yapm olan Kyrillos V Karakallos dnemi, bu dnemde bir patriin

muhalifleri karsnda otoritesini salamlatrmak iin nasl etkin bir ekilde


9/311

vi

mcadele ettiini gsteren gzel bir rnek. Karakallosun dnemini ardndan 1763e

gelindiinde gerondismos kurulmu ve bu tarihten sonra Patrikhane ynetim

karsnda kolektif olarak temsil edilmeye balamt. Sonuta Patrikhanenin statik

bir varlk olmaktan ok imparatorluk bakentinde Osmanl toplumunun finansal ve

sosyal alaryla iliki iinde olan aktif bir zne olarak ortaya kyor.

Anahtar kelimeler: stanbul Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, patrik, berat, nizam, on

sekizinci yzyl, Osmanl, Kyrillos Karakallos.


10/311

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For this dissertation, first of all I would like to thank Eugenia Kermeli,

who has a great share in this study. Since my first years as an MA student of history

at Bilkent University, she has not only been an academic mentor for me, but a firm

supporter in everything I did, as she is for many other students in the department. She

is an exemplar not only of a competent historian, but also of a generous human being

who shares her knowledge and life experience. Without her support, encouragement,

and labor, I would not have been able to write this dissertation. I would like to thank

Prof. zer Ergen whose expertise and comments have greatly contributed to this

study. I am thankful to professors Mehmet z and Eugeni Radushev for their

invaluable contributions to this study and for their useful statements. I am indebted to

Hlya Ta not only for her remarks on the study, but also for her generous and

encouraging support. I also thank Oktay zel for his contribution; over the last

decade he has always been ready to help. I am thankful to Halil nalck, who

contributed to this study as a pioneer historian and opened the way for research into

the history of the Patriarchate during the Ottoman period.

This dissertation was financially supported by the TBTAK BDEB

scholarship. My research trip to Athens in 2007 was financed by the W.D.E. Coulson

& Toni Cross Aegean Exchange Program fellowship by ARIT, and by the Bilkent


11/311

viii

University Department of History. Finally, I was a Turkish Cultural Foundation

fellow in 2010. I would like to thank these institutions for their financial

contributions.

I would like to thank the staff of the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archive in

Istanbul. In the Topkap Palace Library, enay Eren kindly helped me with some

electronic documents at a time when the library was under construction. I am

thankful to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for his permission to work in the

Patriarchate Library, and to Yorgo Benlisoy for his kind assistance during my studies

at Fener. I also extend my thanks to Maria Georgakopoulou of the Gennadios

Library, as well as to other people in that library and in the American School of

Classical Studies in Athens. I am also grateful to the staff of the ISAM Library. I

would also like to thank Eser Sunar, secretary of the Bilkent Department of History,

for all her considerate help.

One of my most valuable gains during the research for this study was the

people I met, who today constitute the most important people in my life. First among

them is Evangelia Balta. During my research in Athens and later in Istanbul, she

supported me to a great extent, and I am greatly indebted to her. In Athens, she

introduced me to Prof. Christos Patrinelis, who led me to Greek sources. I was very

sorry to hear the news of his passing away, and I always wished he could have read

this study. Her friend and colleague Georgios Koutzakiotis, among others, was very

helpful during my studies in the National Hellenic Research Center. Finally, Prof.

Balta also introduced me to Ari okona, to whom I am also indebted for his

encouraging support.

Suraiya Faroqhi contributed to my study not only with her written work,

but also by listening to and answering my questions. Gnhan Breki generously


12/311

ix

shared some sources with me during one of his visits to Bilkent University. zlem

Sert kindly sent her dissertation and other articles, which contributed to this study.

Theodosios Kyriakidis not only shared a lot of written work with me, but he has also

kindly answered my occasional questions for the last three years. My friend from

Bilkent University, Hasan olak, has considerately shared his knowledge and ideas

with me for the last four years. Duygu UlaAysal Cin also discussed with me many

parts of the study and inspired me. Abdrrahim zer provided written work with me,

and he and his wife yk zer (Terziolu) enlightened our life. Michael Douglas

Sheridan kindly undertook the painful work of proof-reading the thesis. Despite the

contribution of so many people, I should mention that any mistakes there may be are

mine alone.

So many friends contributed significantly to this study that unfortunately I

cannot name them all. I cannot extend thanks enough to Nihan Saide Altnba, Gzde

Yazc, Fahri Dikkaya, and Muhsin Soyudoan, who share the same fate as me and

who made life tolerable. Aslhan Grbzel, Nergiz Nazlar, Harun Yeni, and Ik

Demirakn are among those at Bilkent University who have offered their valuable

friendship to me. First in Athens and then in Istanbul, Glin Tunal Ko and Haim

Ko helped me generously with their friendship, and I thank them. Maria Demesticha

also deserves many thanks for her friendship. I also thank zkuzenimMge Canpolat

Yanarda, one of my greatest supports in life, as well as her husband Volkan

Yanarda. I am indebted to ehnaz imanolu imek not only for this study, but

for being my lifelong companion in all my journeys in life. I am thankful and

indebted also to Mehmet imek.

My family has always been the greatest support in my life. I am indebted

to my mother Aysel Bayraktar, my father Ahmet Gavsi Bayraktar, and my uncle


13/311

x

Erhan Frat. They compassionately cared for everything that I did in my life, and

without their love and support I would not be able to achieve. I also thank my brother

Korkut Bayraktar and my cousins Ouzhan Frat and Gler Frat. My aunts Banu

Bayraktar, Betl Kon, and Glsel Dalolu always made their presence felt from

far away, and for this I am grateful to them.

Nesrin Tellan and Hulusi Soygut Tellan have contributed to many

dissertations, and mine is only the latest one. I am thankful to them not only for their

contribution, especially during the last phase of this study, but for having raised a

person like Blent Tellan. My husband Blent Tellan illuminates my life with his

presence and posture in life, and I am grateful to him with all my heart.


14/311

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................iii

ZET........................................................................................................................... vACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... xi

TRANSLITERATION............................................................................................. xv

ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................. xvi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

1.1. Literary Review.......................................................................................11.2. Approach................................................................................................ 14

1.3. Structure ................................................................................................ 16

1.4. Sources.................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER II: THE PATRIARCHATE UP TO 1700.......................................... 24

2.1. THE INSTITUTION............................................................................. 24

2.1.1. Jurisdiction.............................................................................. 242.1.2. Finances ...................................................................................34

2.1.2.1. Ecclesiastical taxes paid to the patriarchs by the

Christian reyand the metropolitans ............................. 34

2.1.2.2. The fiscal obligations of the Patriarchate to the Porte....... 36

2.1.2.3. A note on zarr-kassbiye ...........................................38

2.2. ACTORS ................................................................................................ 41

2.2.1.ARCHONS ............................................................................... 41

2.2.2. CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS AND CAPITULATIONS... 43


15/311

xii

2.2.2.1. Counter-Reformation and Capitulations............................ 45

2.2.2.2. The Attitude of the Patriarchate towards Catholic

Propaganda in the 17thcentury .........................................50

2.2.2.3. The Case of 1672-3 ...........................................................53

2.2.3. EASTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA....................................56

2.3. A TURBULENT ERA: THE PATRIARCHATE VIS--VISTHE

PORTE IN THE 17thCENTURY, 1638-1659..................................... 59

2.3.1. Kyrillos I Loukaris .................................................................60

2.3.1.1. Loukariss early career and his first encounter

with the Protestants ........................................................... 61

2.3.1.2. Loukariss patriarchate years in Istanbul and his

enmity with the Jesuits...................................................... 62

2.3.1.3. The printing press: ............................................................. 64

2.3.1.4. Loukariss Confession ....................................................... 66

2.3.1.5. Loukariss final patriarchate and his execution:................ 68

2.3.2. Parthenios II............................................................................ 72

2.3.3. Parthenios III.......................................................................... 73

2.3.4. Gabriel II ................................................................................. 77

CHAPTER III: EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY DEVELOPMENTS .....................80

3.1. OTTOMAN REALITIES ..................................................................... 80

3.1.1. Fiscal policies and their effects.............................................. 81

3.1.2. From War to Diplomacy ........................................................ 88

3.1.3. The Tulip Age and Popular Revolts.................................. 91

3.1.4. Petitioning in the eighteenth century....................................95

3.1.5. A remark on non-Muslims and Muslims beforethe end of the eighteenth century..........................................98

3.2. THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ACTORS....................................100

3.2.1. Financing the Taxes: The Network of Clergymen,

Esnaf, andArchons...............................................................100

3.2.2. The Phanariots Rise to Prominence in Diplomacy

and Bureaucracy................................................................... 110

3.2.2.1. Logothetes as exarchs: .................................................... 1123.2.2.2.Archons in the Porte as intermediaries in the 18thcentury.......... 116


16/311

xiii

3.2.3. The Catholics ........................................................................ 119

3.2.3.1. The eighteenth century .................................................... 119

3.2.3.2. The Ottoman reaction ...................................................... 120

3.2.3.3. Change in the 18thcentury: Ambassadors and Jesuits......... 121

3.3. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE

PATRIARCHATE IN THE 18th CENTURY.................................... 123

3.3.1. The Institution ...................................................................... 123

3.3.1.1. Change of terminology.................................................... 129

3.3.1.2. Tebden: The patriarchate as a life-long office........... 131

3.3.1.3. The stipulations of 1714, 1716, and 1720 ....................... 135

3.3.1.4. Additions and changes, 1725-1761 ................................. 139

3.3.1.5. Practice of religion........................................................... 140

3.3.1.6. Family Law...................................................................... 143

3.3.1.7. Countering the influence of local notables ...................... 144

3.3.1.8. The struggle for authority................................................ 147

3.3.1.9. Expansion of the rule of the patriarch as

an intermediate ................................................................150

3.3.1.10. Countering interference in the patriarchs

right to collect dues ........................................................... 159

3.4. THE FINANCES OF THE PATRIARCHATE

IN THE 18thCENTURY..................................................................... 163

3.4.1. Payments ............................................................................... 163

3.4.2. Debts ......................................................................................168

CHAPTER IV: PORTRAIT OF AN 18th-CENTURY PATRIARCH:

KYRILLOS V KARAKALLOS ........................................................................... 170

Kyrillos: A saint or a fraud? ..................................................................... 170

4.1. THE FIRST TERM OF KYRILLOS V (1748-1751) ....................... 173

4.1.1. Avenue to the patriarchate .................................................. 173

4.1.2. First term and its end........................................................... 176

4.1.3. The history of anabaptism as a theological discussion...... 179

4.1.4. The social and political implication of anabaptism in

eighteenth-century Istanbul................................................. 1844.1.5. Auxentios............................................................................... 187


17/311

xiv

4.1.6. The riot of September 1752 ................................................. 192

4.1.7. The context of the event ....................................................... 196

4.2. THE SECOND TERM OF KYRILLOS (1752-1757) ...................... 198

4.2.1. Anabaptism during the second term of Kyrillos /

The Paper War ..................................................................... 198

4.2.2. The Finances of the Patriarchate ........................................201

4.2.3. The supporters of Kyrillos: The esnafand the Chiotes .... 204

4.2.4. Kyrillos versus the metropolitans .......................................206

4.2.5. Kyrillos against theFrenks .................................................. 216

4.2.6. The final downfall of Kyrillos:

The limits of Ottoman policy.................................................218

CHAPTER V: GERONDISMOS, THE PATRIARCHATE AS A CORPORATE

BODY ...................................................................................................................... 222

5.1. The Synod............................................................................................. 223

5.2. The first step towards thegerondismosin 1741................................ 225

5.3. The path to thegerondismosand the discourse of petitions, 1741 to 1763...... 227

5.4. Consolidation of the power of the metropolitans in 1763................ 232

5.5. Change in the patriarchalberts after 1763...................................... 234

CHAPTER VI: THE ANNEXATIONS OF PEAND OHRID........................ 240

6.1. Previous Literature ............................................................................. 240

6.2. Evidence of Ottoman documents ....................................................... 242

CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION.......................................................................... 251

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................. 259

APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................... 281APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................... 283APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................... 284


18/311

xv

TRANSLITERATION

Greek

a b

g

d

e

z

i

th

i

k

l

m n

x

o

p

r

s

t

y

f

ch

ps o

Ottoman

a, e

b

p

t

s

c

h

h

d

z

r

z

j

s

s

z

t

z

f

k

k

l

m

n

v

h, e, a

la

i, y


19/311

xvi

ABBREVIATIONS

D.PSK Piskoposluk Kalemi Belgeleri

KK.d. Kamil Kepeci Defterleri

K ikyet Defteri

TTK Trk Tarih Kurumu

DIA Diyanet slam Ansiklopedisi

IA slam Ansiklopedisi (M.E.B.)

EI2 Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd

edition (Brill)

BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Journal

IJMES International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies

OTAM Ankara niversitesi OsmanlTarihi Aratrma ve Uygulama Merkezi

Dergisi

IRSH International Review of Social History

EEBS Epetiris Etaireias Byzantinon Spoudon

TSAB Turkish Studies Association Bulletin


20/311

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Literary Review

Historiography in the twentieth century has produced many important

works on the history of the Orthodox Patriarchate during the Ottoman era. Yet,

despite the considerable volume of documents produced by the Ottoman chancery,

the relationship between the Ottoman Porte and the Patriarchate and the changes this

relationship underwent over the centuries remains an understudied subject.

One of the dominant tendencies in historiography is to attribute a wide

scope of power to the patriarch vis--visthe Ottoman administration, beginning from

the period of Mehmed II. The patriarch is considered the ethnarch/ milletbaof the

Orthodox subjects, and the Patriarchate is narrated as an autonomous institution

within the Ottoman state. The patriarch is attributed a large scope of rights and

privileges, as well as legislative and juridical jurisdiction. A major setback of this

thesis is the presupposition that the position of the Patriarchate vis--visthe Ottoman

Porte remained unchanged for the almost three and a half centuries of Ottoman rule.


21/311

2

Similarly, this historical discourse is primarily constructed around financial dealings

between the Patriarchate and the Porte. This consideration of the Patriarchate as an

unaltered entity over centuries, encompassing a wide range of power vis--vis the

Ottoman Porte, will here be referred to as the milletsystem theory. The pioneer of

this line of thought is the work of Gibb and Bowen, who propose that Mehmed II had

formally organized the dhimmis into three recognized millets: Orthodox, Armenian

and Jewish.1For the Orthodox millet, they note the following:

[] the Patriarch was duly installed with as many of the traditionalceremonies as might be performed in the absence of an Emperor; he was

assigned the ceremonial rank of aPaawith three tus, and he was allowedhis own court and prison in the Phanar quarter, with all but unlimited civil

jurisdiction over and responsibility for the dhimmis of his Church.2

This stereotyped image was reproduced in Arnakiss work, adding the

Portes greed as the determining factor in the relation:

In the course of time the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople came to beregarded as the leader of theRum Milletii.e., of the Orthodox Christians

who were under the authority of the Sultan. Since religion and nationalitywere identical in the eyes of the Turk, the Sublime Porte allowed a largemeasure of self-government to theRum Milletiunder the guise of religioustoleration. When his security was not threatened, the Turk seemed to bemainly interested in the collection of taxes from the subject races anddown to the first decade of the twentieth centuryreferred to the non-Turkish populations as raya, an Arabic word meaning flock or herdanimal. As H.A. Gibbons remarked, they were regarded as nothing morethan taxable assets.3

In 1982, for the first time, critics of the millet theory challenged the imageof the all-powerful Patriarch, and the foundation of a systematic arrangement by

1Hamilton Alexander Roskeen Gibb, and Harold Bowen,Islamic Society and the West: A Study of theImpact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture in the Near East, London, New York, Toronto:Oxford University Press, 1957, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 207-261.2Gibb and Bowen,Islamic Society and the West,p. 216.3 G. Georgiades Arnakis, The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire, TheJournal of Modern History, 24 / 3, 1952, p. 238. Concerning the identification of religion andnationality, he was inspired by Werner J. Cahnman, Religion and Nationality, The American

Journal of Sociology, 49/6, 1944, pp. 524-529. The publication in 1958 of Runcimans The GreatChurch in Captivity added legitimization to the claim. (Steven Runciman, The Great Church inCaptivity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968).


22/311

3

Mehmed II began to be seen as a myth.4 The nature of Ottoman non-Muslim

administration has been proposed as a series of ad hocarrangements rather than a

uniformly adopted system.5 The revision of the Gibb and Bowen millet system

targeted not only the Orthodox but also the Armenian Patriarchate and the Jewish

Rabbinate.6

The nature and the scope of the power of the Patriarch, whether religious

or political, is a major issue of dispute. Pantazopouloss proposition that the

Ottomans not only extended the religious authority of the patriarch [ethnarch /

milletba] but granted him political authority as well, for religious, political and

economic reasons, was confronted by Halil nalck.7Against the political authority of

Patriarchs assumed by the proponents of the millet theory, nalck emphasizes the

Islamic principles with which the Ottoman administrators acted in accordance.8He

holds that recognition of the Orthodox Church as part of the Ottoman state was the

most effective component of the istimletpolicy, the policy of tolerance towards the

4Benjamin Braude, Foundation Myths of the Millet System in Christians and Jews in the OttomanEmpire, ed. Braude and Lewis, Vol. I, Holmes and Meier, New York and London: 1982; Macit M.Kenanolu, OsmanlMillet Sistemi: Mit ve Gerek,Klasik Yaynevi, stanbul: 2004; nalck, Halil.The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans in Essays in Ottoman History, ed.Halil nalck, stanbul: Eren, 1998, pp. 195-223.5Benjamin Braude, Bernard Lewis (ed.s). Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, New York,London: Holmes-Meier Publishers, 1982, pp. 12-13: Rather than a uniformly adopted system, it may

be more accurately described as a series of ad hocarrangements made over the years, which gave eachof the major religious communities a degree of legal autonomy and authority with the acquiescence ofthe Ottoman state. Power could be held by either lay or religious figuresactual leadership variedwith community, time and place. The degree to which communal authority was merely local orempirewide also varied.6See the articles in Braude and Lewis, Christians and Jews, of Kevork B. Bardakjian, The Rise ofthe Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople in Vol.1, pp. 89-100; Joseph R. Hacker, OttomanPolicy toward the Jews and Jewish Attitudes toward the Ottomans during the Fifteenth Century, inVol.1, pp. 101-115; Amnon Cohen, On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the SixteenthCentury, in Vol. II, pp. 7-18.7 Nikolaos J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula during the Ottoman Rule,Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1984, p. 19, see pp. 10-28. nalck, The Status, p. 195.8See nalck The Status pp. 195-196, against Pantazopouloss theories put forward in Church and

Law in the Balkan Peninsula. He mentions the pre-existing Islamic system on p. 203. Zachariadoucomments that the appointment of Gennadios was based on basic Islamic principles motivated by awish to repopulate the deserted City. Zachariadou,Deka Tourkika, p. 25.


23/311

4

non-resistant Christians for the purpose of winning over the population.9 nalck

emphasizes the Patriarchs role as an official of the Ottoman administration in this

system.

In order to demonstrate that the position of the patriarch was not as

extensive as assumed, nalck underlines the fact that after the Synod elected the

Patriarch, an official Ottoman bertwas needed in order to complete the process, just

as in the appointment of guild kethds.10 Following this line of thought, Macit

Kenanolu proposed the role of the patriarch as a mltezim.11 In this approach,

however, the power of the Patriarchate as exercised upon the Orthodox subjects of

the Ottoman society is overlooked. This interpretation, a reaction to the millet

system theory of Gibb and Bowen, will be referred to as the mltezimtheory.

Kenanolu puts forward the concept of ruhani mltezim and proposes

that the Patriarchs and Chief Rabbis assumed the role of mltezimsin the Ottoman

Empire.12On the other hand, Anastasios G. Papademetrious main argument is that

the Patriarchate was considered by the Ottomans to be primarily a tax-farm just like

any other tax-farm in the Empire, since the annual revenues were collected by the

Patriarchate. He proposes that the Ottoman Empire did not act according to Islamic

principles, but as an efficient and pragmatic administration.13 Although the two

historians both propose that the patriarch was a mltezimin the Ottoman Empire, the

motivations of the two historians are basically different: Kenanolu endeavors to

demonstrate that the position of the patriarch did not extend beyond the duties of a

9nalck, The Status, p. 197.10 nalck, The Status, pp. 206-207, also Halil nalck, The Appointment Procedure of a GuildWarden (Kethuda), Festschrift fur Andreas Tietze, Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde desMorgenlandes, 76, 1986, pp. 135-142.11Kenanolu, OsmanlMillet Sistemi.12

Kenanolu, OsmanlMillet Sistemi, p. 64, and the argument throughout the book.13Anastasios G. Papademetriou,Ottoman Tax Farming and the Greek Patriarchate: An Examinationof State and Church in Ottoman Society (15th-16thcentury), PhD diss., Princeton University, 2001.


24/311

5

mltezim, whereas Papademetriou stresses the Ottoman interest in money as an

explanatory framework.

To return to the deconstruction of the millet theory, its followers

concentrate on the erroneous usage of the term millet. Braude reexamined the work

of Gibb and Bowen and wrote an article proposing that the term millet, prior to the

nineteenth century, was not used by Ottomans to denote the mass of their non-

Muslim subjects, but used instead for themselves, Christian sovereigns and for rare

Jewish favorites. Braudes main argument is against the existence of an

administrative system for dealing with non-Muslims in the classical period of the

Ottoman Empire, which is what is generally assumed of the extended autonomy

given to the community leaders. He challenged the policies attributed to Mehmed II

concerning not only the Orthodox, but also the Armenian Patriarch and the Jewish

hahamba [Chief Rabbi] Capsali. According to him, dhimma was a concept that

went back to the period of the Prophet Muhammed, whereas the millet system used

by historians emerged in the nineteenth century; he also adds that the term milletstill

existed in the classical period, but with different connotations.14Ursinus provided

counter-examples to the usage of the term milletas proposed by Braude, and opposed

the idea that, before the beginning of the period of reform, the term was used in

Ottoman-Turkish sources to mean the community of Muslims. Ursinus provided

examples from the mhimme defterleri of the dvn-hmynin which millet refers

to the non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, at least from the end of

seventeenth century onwards.15As a response to Ursinuss criticism, Braude claimed

that the usage of the term in the way Ursinus proposed was restricted to the mhimme

registers of the seventeenth century, and that such was not the case in sources outside

14Braude, Foundation Myths,pp. 69-88.15Michael Ursinus, Millet,EI 2, Vol. VII, 1993, pp. 61-64.


25/311

6

Constantinople, such as sharia records. Therefore, he maintains his argument that

the milletsystem did not exist as an empire-wide system for regulating the affairs of

the major non-Muslim communities during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.16

Goffman contributes to the discussion surrounding the usage of the term milletin the

seventeenth century by proposing that the term millet was variable and

polychrestic, like Ottoman society itself.17Goffman shows that the milletsystem

paradigm conceals more than it reveals, as in, for example, the bonds between the

Empires communities of different religions in the early seventeenth century and the

governments apparent indifference to these bonds.18The idea that a milletbadid

not exist before the nineteenth century was also defended by Konortas.19 Again,

Veinstein argues that nalcks conclusions on the fiscal transformation of the

eighteenth-century fiscal system that is, the generalization of the impt de

rpartition is connected to the debate on the milletsystem. He agrees with Braude

on the theory that the millets, in the sense of a self-ruled unit, [were] able to emerge

in the Ottoman Empire only after the appearance of the objective conditions for such

an emergence, which were fully established only in the eighteenth century with the

generalization of the impt de rpartition.20

In the discussion concerning the rights of the Patriarch, the main point of

reference is the narrative concerning Mehmed IIs appointment of the first Patriarch,

George Scholarios, who took the name Gennadios II. The bertof Gennadios, the

16 Benjamin Braude, The Strange History of the Millet System in The Great Ottoman-TurkishCivilization, Vol. 2, Ankara: Yeni Trkiye, 2000, p. 418, fn.3.17Daniel Goffman, Ottoman Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century,New Perspectives on Turkey11, 1994, pp. 135-158.18Goffman, Ottoman Millets, p. 150.19 Paraskevas Konortas, From Taife to Millet: Ottoman Terms for the Ottoman Greek OrthodoxCommunity, in, Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in theNineteenth Century, Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1999, pp. 169-179.20Gilles Veinstein, nalcks views on the Ottoman Eighteenth Century and the Fiscal Problem, inOriento Moderno1999, The Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century, Kate Fleet (ed.), pp. 9-10.


26/311

7

written official document of appointment, is missing, which is the major source of

dispute in the discussions.21 In order to deconstruct or consolidate the theories

concerning the scope of the Patriarchs power, historians have discussed whether the

privileges of Gennadios were personal or institutional, whether they were written or

oral, and whether the nature of the privileges was ecclesiastical or administrative.22

One of the fifteenth-century accounts concerning the appointment of

Gennadios is that of Kritovoulos. According to Kritovoulos, Mehmed II appointed

Scholarios as patriarch in January 1454.23 Another source for the story was the

Chronicon Maius of Sphrantzes, but it has been proven that this account, long

attributed to Sphrantzes, is actually a sixteenth-century forgery, the work of

Makarios Melissenos Melissourgos, who was the archbishop of Monemvasia in the

late sixteenth century.24Melissenos adopted the Chronicon Minus of Sphrantzes and

21

Sixteenth-century chronicles mention that it was lost during a fire in the Patriarchate. nalckcomments that It is inconceivable that while the Sultans had appointed metropolitans by bertbefore1453, the Conqueror should abstain from doing so when appointing the Patriarch ( nalck, TheStatus, p. 203). Zachariadou, depending on the work of Gennadios, claims that it was written(grammasin), Elizabeth A. Zachariadou,Deka Tourkika Eggrafa gia tin Megali Ekklisia (1483-1520),Athens: Ethniko Idryma Ereunon, Institouto Byzantinon Ereunon, 1996, p. 48. Kenanolu proposesthat they must be oral, OsmanlMillet Sistemi, pp. 78-83. See also Despina Tsourka-Papastathi, Propos des Privilges Octroys par Mehmed II au Patriarche Gennadios Scholarios: Mythes etRalits in Le patriarcat oecumnique de Constantinople aux XIVe-XVIe sicles: Rupture etContinuit: Actes du Colloque International, Rome, 5-6-7 Dcembre 2005, eds. Augustine Casiday, etal., (Paris: Centre dtudes byzantines, No-hellniques et Sud-est Europennes, cole des hautestudes en sciences sociales, 2007), pp. 253-275, pp. 269-273.22 The nature of privileges and the legal status of non-Muslims are discussed in Theodore H.

Papadopoullos, Studies and Documents Relating to the History of the Greek Church and People underTurkish Domination, Aldershot: Variorum, 1990, pp. 1-10; Kenanolu, OsmanlMillet Sistemi, pp.27-90; Tsourka- Papastathi, Propos des Privilges, pp. 267-274; Zachariadou,Deka Tourkika, pp.44-50, and nalck, The Status, pp. 203-208.23 Charles Riggs, (trans.) History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Kritovoulos, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1954, pp. 93-94. The fact that Kritovoulos dedicated his work to the Sultan as afaithful collaborator has put doubt on the account and on the story of the Patriarch. (For exampleBraude, Foundation Myths, p. 77.) Upon the Sultans expressed interest in the Orthodox religion,Gennadios prepared a report consisting of twenty sections explaining the principles of the Christianreligion. The text was translated into Turkish-Arabic language by the kadof Veroia Ahmet, son ofMahmut elebi. Immanuel Bekker (ed.), Historia Politica et Patriarchica Constantinopoleos,Epirotica, Bonn: 1849, p. 84. See also Ragp zdem,Gennadiosun tikatnamesi, lk HalkevleriDergisi10/60, 1938, pp. 529-540.24

An overview of the gradual progress in studies concerning the forgery on Chronicon Maiusis foundin Marios Philippides, An Unknown Source for Book III of the Chronicon Maius by Pseudo-Sphrantzes, Byzantine Studies 10, 1983, pp. 174-183; nalck, The Status, p. 203; Braude,


27/311

8

created a longer version, Chronicon Maius. One of the differences between the two

accounts is the story of Gennadios.25While the original Chronicon Minusdoes not

mention Gennadios, the sixteenth-century forgery does. Braude points to the fact that

the fifteenth-century accounts of Doukas and Chalcocondyles do not mention

Gennadios either.26 Zachariadou, on the other hand, mentions the account of

Theodoros Agallianos, the autobiography of Gennadios and his letters among

fifteenth-century sources for the period. She is thus, in this sense, not as skeptical

towards the story of Gennadios.27

For the sixteenth-century accounts on Patriarchal history, Philippides

proposes that Damaskenos the Studites 1572 work History of the Patriarchs of

Constantinople is the basic source on which other chronicles are directly or

indirectly based.28 Manuel Malaxoss Historia Patriarchica and Historia Politica

were the other two fundamental sources, brought to the attention of a scholar from

Tbingen, Martin Crusius, by a Patriarchate official named Theodosios Zygomalas.29

The Chronicon Maiusof Melissiourgos, mentioned above as wrongly attributed to

Sphrantzes, is the third chronicle of the sixteenth century. Philippides claims that the

anonymous text (edited by himself), which is in many cases identical to Malaxos and

Foundation Myths, p. 76; Hasan olak, Co-Existence and Conflict Between Muslims and Non-Muslims in the 16th Century Ottoman stanbul, MA Thesis, Bilkent University, 2008, pp. 3-6.25Philippides, An Unknown Source, pp. 177-178; Marios Philippides (ed.),Emperors, Patriarchs,and Sultans of Constantinople, 1373-1513: An Anonymous Greek Chronicle of the Sixteenth Century ,

Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1990, p. 57.26Braude, Foundation Myths, p. 76.27Zachariadou,Deka Tourkika, p. 41-42. C.J.G. Turner, Notes on the Works of Theodore Agallianoscontained in Codex Bodleianus Canonicus Graecus 49, inByzantinische Zeitschrift61, 1968, pp. 27-35. Christos G. Patrinelis, O Theodoros Agallianos kai oi Anekdotoi Logoi Autou, Athens: 1966. ForGennadioss letters, see Tsourka- Papastathi, Propos des Privilges, p. 256-263.28Philippides (ed.), Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans, p. 17. Philippides says that this manuscriptremains unpublished in the Patriarchate Library. Marios Philippides, Patriarchal Chronicles of theSixteenth Century, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies25/1, 1984, p. 94.29Philippides (ed.),Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans, pp. 17-19. Nowadays we have every reason tobelieve that theHistory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, attributed to Manuel Malaxos, is not anoriginal document but that it derives largely from the composition of Damaskenos, Philippides (ed.),Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans, p. 19. See also Ulrich Moening, OnMartin Crusius'sCollection

of Greek Vernacular and Religious Books,Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies21/1, 1997, pp. 40-87. (For this study I will use the Bonn edition: Immanuel Bekker, (ed.),Historia Politica etPatriarchica Constantinopoleos, Epirotica, Bonn: 1849.)


28/311

9

Damaskenos, is part of this tradition.30Finally, a manuscript in the Library of Chios,

which includes three tales for Gennadios and Mehmed II written in Constantinople in

1577, has recently been brought to light.31

The story of Gennadios has been the focus of the discussion on the

privileges of the Patriarchs because the rights of the Patriarchs drew the boundaries

of Christian religious practices in the Empire. The extent of the rights of the first

patriarch of Ottoman rule would form the basis of the rights of the succeeding

patriarchs. Zachariadou published the earliest surviving bert thus far discovered,

dating to 1483; this may be the closest (in terms of the scope of the rights) to that of

Gennadios.32 The ambiguity concerning the exact nature of authority invested to

Gennadios by Mehmed II led to heated debates even during the Ottoman period. As

extensive jurisdiction and privileges form the main core of the milletsystem theory,

current historiography has followed suit.

At certain points during the Ottoman centuries, the need to legitimize the

rights of the Patriarchate arose. For example, when the Portes administration

attempted to convert churches at the beginning of the sixteenth century, witnesses

were produced who testified that the City was taken by agreement.33 Thus

30 Philippides (ed.), Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans. The text exists in various manuscripts.

(Including S. Lampros,Ecthesis Chronica, London: 1902) The unknown author also drew from othersources, such as Damaskenos. (Philippides (ed.), Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans, p. 21).Zachariadou mentions Ecthesis Chroniki, Historia Politica, Historia Patriarchica, and the BiblionHistorikon of Pseudo-Dorotheos as sixteenth-century chronicles, and says that they are based onanother text, The Chronicle of 1391-1514, repeating more or less the same text with variations andadditions. Zachariadou,Deka Tourkika, pp. 42-44.31 Dean Sakel, Three Tales for a Sultan? Three Tales on Mehmed the Conqueror and PatriarchGennadius, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 35/2, 2008, pp. 227-238. Sakel refers to K.Amantos, Treis Agnostoi Kodikes tou Khronografou, Hellenika, 1, 1928, pp. 45-70 for informationon the manuscript.32For a discussion views on the authenticity of this bertand the second earliest so far published, seepp. 26-27.33 For a thorough discussion of historiography on the problem of the attempt to confiscate the

churches in the sixteenth century, see olak, Co-Existence and Conflict Between Muslims and Non-Muslims in the 16th Century Ottoman stanbul. Christos G. Patrinelis, The Exact Time of the FirstAttempt of the Turks to Seize the Churches and Convert the Christian People of Constantinople to


29/311

10

Melissenos, mentioned above, fabricated a fifteenth-century text in the sixteenth

century to produce argumentation against encroachment on supposed privileges.34

Philippides also comments that the reason for the compilations of Patriarchal

histories in the sixteenth century is related to the Patriarchates attempt to stop the

conversion of Christian churches in Constantinople to mosques.35The conversion of

churches into mosques is one of the central issues related to the privileges of the

Church.

By the eighteenth century, the myths related to the appointment of

Gennadios had already been standardized, as the account of James Dallaway, written

at the end of the century, testifies:

After the taking of Constantinople by Mohammed II, he continued, to thefirst patriarch, the same present which the Greek Emperors had beenaccustomed to make, a pastoral staff, a white horse, and four hundredducats in gold. He left ample revenues to the Greek church, and themaintenance of its clergy [].36

By the nineteenth century, the idea that the rights and privileges of

Patriarchs were rooted in the period of Mehmed II found followers in the Porte, as is

expressed in the Islahat Fermanof 1856.37The Islahat Fermanstipulated that the

Islam,Actes du 1er Congres International des Etudes Balkaniques et Sud-Est Europennes, Vol. III,Sophia: 1969, pp. 567-574.34See fn. 24.35Philippides (ed.),Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans, p. 17.36James Dallaway, Constantinople Ancient and Modern, with Excursions to the Shores and Islands of

the Archipelago and to the Troad, London: 1797, p. 100; olak, Co-Existence and Conflict, pp. 58-59.37 Bb- lmizin nezreti tahtnda olarak mahssan patrikhanelerde tekil olunacak meclislermarifetiyle bil-mzakere cnib-i Bb-lmize arz ve ifade eylemeye mecbur olarak CennetmekanEbul-feth Sultan Mehmed Hn- Sni Hazretleri ve gerek ahlf- izmlar tarafndan patrikler ileHristiyan piskoposlarna t buyurulmu olan ruhsat ve iktidar niyt- ftvvet-karne-iPadihnemden n ibu cemaatlere temin olunmuolan hl ve mevki-i cedd ile tevfk olunup vepatriklerin el-hlet hzih cr olan usl-i intihbiyeleri slh olunduktan sonra patriklik berat-lsinin ahkmna tatbikan kayd-hayat ile nasb ve tayin olunmalaruslnn tamamen ve sahhanicr ve Bb-lmizle cemat-muhtelifenin res-yruhnyesi beyninde karar-gr olacak bir sretetatbikan patrik ve metropolit ve murahhasa [sic] ve piskopos ve hahamlarn hn-i nasbnda usl-itahlifiyenin f klnmasve her ne sret ve nm ile olursa olsun rahiplere verilmekte olan ceviz veavidt cmleten men olunarak yerine patriklere ve cemat balarna varidt-muayyene tahss ve

ruhbn-sirenin dah rtbe ve mansblarnn ehemmiyetine ve bundan sonra verilecek karara grekendilerine ber-veh-i hakkniyet maalar tayin olunup fakat Hristiyan rahiplerinin emvl-i menkleve gayr-i menklelerine bir gna sekte irs olunmayarak, Hristiyan ve sir tebaa-i gayr-i mslime


30/311

11

privileges and rights of Patriarchs would be adapted to the newstatus quo. In 1862, a

new regulation the Rum Patrikhanesi Nizmnamesi was prepared by a

commission of seven metropolitans and twenty-one laymen, presented to the Porte

and accepted.38The stipulations of the Rum Patrikhanesi Nizmnamesi, regulating

the extended rights and privileges, demonstrate the extent of Patriarchal jurisdiction

by 1862.39

At the end of the nineteenth century, the question of the privileges of the

Patriarchate [pronomiako zitimata] arose. Arnakis notes that the legal reforms of the

late nineteenth century and the novelties in the bertof 1882 were disturbing for the

Patriarchate. Further interferences in judiciary and educational privileges resulted

in the resignation of Patriarch Ioachim III in 1884. Although the Porte declared that it

did not intend to change the privileges of the Patriarch, further problems arose in

1890, and this time Patriarch Dionysios V resigned. Negotiations were held in

1891.40

In fact, the core of the problem was centered around the stipulations of

berts, as Konortas notes in his article on the ecclesiastical berts.41 In the

negotiations between the Porte and the Patriarchate on matters relating to

ecclesiastical rights and privileges, the Porte expressed that the bases of the legal

status of churches and ecclesiastical privileges were the berts, theHatt-Hmyn

cemaatlerinin millete olan maslahtlarnn idaresi her bir cemaatin ruhbn ve vm beynindemntehab zdan mrekkeb bir meclisin hsn-i muhfazasna havle klnmas. Gazi Erdem,Osmanl mparatorluunda Hristiyanlarn Sosyal ve Dini Hayatlar (1856-1876), PhD diss.,Ankara University, 2005, p. 132.38Yorgo Benlisoy and Elin Macar, Fener Patrikhanesi, Ankara: Ayra Yaynevi, 1996, pp. 42-44.The Greek text was published as Geniki kannismoi peri dieuthetiseos ton ekklisiastikon kai ethnikonpragmaton ton yp tn oikoumenikn thrnn diatelounton rthdxon Christianon, Ypikon tis A.Megalitits tou Soultanou, Constantinople: 1862.39 For the stipulations, see Erdem, Osmanl mparatorluunda Hristiyanlarn Sosyal ve DiniHayatlar, pp. 232-252.40Arnakis, The Greek Church of Constantinople, pp. 249-250. For a detailed discussion of the issue,see Basileis K. Stefanidis, Ekklisiastiki Istria: Ap'archis Mechri Simern, 4th ed., Athens: Astir,

1978, p. 692 onwards.41Paraskevas Knrtas, I Exelixi ton Ekklisiastikon Beration kai t Prnmiakon Zitima , TaIstrika9, 1988, pp. 259-286.


31/311

12

of 1856 and the regulations of 1862 [Rum Patrikhanesi Nizmnamesi]. Upon this

basis, the Patriarchate initiated a process of collecting and recording berts. Konortas

compares ecclesiastical berts and proposes that common expressions in earlier and

later berts suggest that earlier ones might be inauthentic. He proposes that the bert

of the metropolitan of Larissa dated 1604 may not have been composed until the

1850s.42In this process, finding old berts was imperative. Interestingly, the oldest

bert found in the Patriarchal archive was dated to 1835. As Konortas notes, G.A.

Mavrokordatos in 1853 and the Metropolitan Anthimos in 1868 voiced the opinion

that the privileges had not changed since the fifteenth century, the official position of

the Patriarchate. This was repeated by other ecclesiastics, e.g.Manuel Gedeon,43and

by the metropolitan of Ilioupoli Gennadios in 1938. Papadopoulos accepted this

opinion in 1952.44The final phase of the problem of privileges was related to the

Patriarchates defense against the policies of Committee of Union and Progress.45

Finally, books were printed in order to defend ecclesiastical rights. Gedeons books

printed in the Patriarchal printing house relates to the later phase of the problem of

privileges. Other books were published by Karavokyros, Delikanis and others. The

problem was not unique to the Rum Orthodox Patriarchate, as similar printing efforts

were undertaken by Armenians as well. Konortas notes, for instance, that Malahia

OrmaniansLEglise Armniennewas published in 1910.46It seems that the practical

concerns of Christian subjects during the Ottoman period and the ideological

42Konortas discusses this in his article Exelixi.43 For Gedeons life and works see Stavros Th. Anestidis, I Ethnarchiki Paradosi tis MegalisEkklisias kai o Manuil Gedeon, PhD Diss, University of Athens, 1993. To mention some of hisworks; Manuel I. Gedeon, Patriarchiki Pinakes: Eidisis Istrikai Bigrafikai peri ton PatriarchonKonstantinoupoleos apo Andreou tou Protklitou mechris Ioakeim Gtou apo Thessalnikis, 36-1884,Athens: Syllgs prs diadsin Ofelimon Biblion, (reprinted) 1996, 2003; Manuel Gedeon,Patriarchiki Efimerides: Eidisis ek tis Imeteras Ekklisiastikis Istrias 1500- 1912, Athens: Typ.Sergiadis, 1938; Manuel Gedeon, Tetraksietiris Patriarchikis Doreas 1538-1937, Athens: 1957.44

Konortas, Exelixi, p. 262.45Konortas, Exelixi, p. 283.46Konortas, Exelixi, pp. 281-286.


32/311

13

concerns of modern historians urged them to construct an image of an autonomous

Patriarch.

Apart from historical contingencies, such as Abdlhamid II and the

Committee of Union and Progresss effort to restrain unlimited patriarchal

jurisdiction, the role of the Patriarchate in the Ottoman era became central in early

twentieth-century Balkan historiography.47 In writing the history of the Greek

Revolution in 1821 and the formation of the modern Greek state, the attitude of the

Patriarchate vis--visthe actors of the Greek Revolution was questioned. To address

accusations against the clergys role during the Greek Revolution, the Patriarchate

was given the role of protector of the Orthodox subjects under Ottoman rule.

Runciman proposes that credit for keeping the light [of Hellenism] alive should be

given to the Church above all, apart from Gennadios, Mehmed II, the Phanariots and

even Koras.48In this picture, the patriarch is considered the ethnarchand the ruler of

the millet.49Clogg questions this role attributed to the Patriarchate by demonstrating

that hostility against the clergy prior to the Greek Revolution existed not only among

intellectuals, but also on the popular level.50 Kitromilides also challenges the

assumptions of twentieth-century Balkan historiography by attributing to the

Orthodox Church and Orthodox Christianity the major role in the construction of a

47

The attitude of the Patriarchate towards the Greek Enlightenment induced by the FrenchRevolution was not favorable. The Paternal Exhortation (Dhidaskalia Patriki) of Anthimos, Patriarchof Jerusalem attributed to Patriarch of Constantinople Grigorios V by Sergios Makraios was in ashort time answered by the Brotherly Exhortation (Adelfiki Didaskalia) of Adamantios Korais in1798. The rift between the two ideologies revealed itself in the language problem ( diglossia). In thisprocess, the Patriarchate was accused of serving the Ottomans. For the authorship of DhidaskaliaPatriki, see Richard Clogg, The Dhidaskalia Patriki (1798): An Orthodox Reaction to FrenchRevolutionary Propaganda,Middle Eastern Studies5/2, 1969, pp. 87-115.48 Steven Runciman, Rum Milleti: The Orthodox Communities under the Ottoman Sultans, in TheByzantine Tradition After the Fall, John James Yiannias (ed.), Charlottesville: University of VirginiaPress, 1991, pp. 13-14.49Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, pp. 165-185.50See Clogg, Richard. "Anti-Clericalism in Pre-Independence Greece c. 1750-1821" in The Orthodox

Churches and the West, Studies in Church History 13, Derek Baker (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 1976,pp. 257-276. Also in Richard Clogg, Anatolica: Studies in the Greek East in the 18th and 19thCenturies, Part VIII, Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.


33/311

14

national identity under the Ottomans, and he points out the antinomy existing

between Orthodoxy and nationalism in the nineteenth century.51

1.2. Approach

The aim of this dissertation is, first of all, to contextualize the history of the

Patriarchate within its Ottoman background, and to demonstrate its gradual

transformation in the eighteenth century. The patriarch was both the spiritual leader

of the Orthodox Christian subjects of the Empire, and an Ottoman administrator.

Apart from the patriarch as a mltezimand as a religious leader, the nature of his role

in the changing conditions of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Ottoman society

will also be explored.

Distinct social boundaries between Christians and Muslims only began to

emerge from the end of the eighteenth century onwards, not before.52In explaining

the role of the Patriarchate during the Ottoman period, a more important distinction

that should be taken into account is the distinction between the administrators of the

Porte (in which the Patriarchate is included) and the tax-paying rey. This will be

one of the key perspectives of this study.

In Orthodox Christianity, monasteries are symbols of isolation founded

primarily on high hills at a distance from residential areas. Contrary to this, churches,

51Paschalis Kitromilides, Imagined Communities and the Origins of the National question in theBalkans inEnlightenment, Nationalism and Orthodoxy, XI, pp. 149-192. In order to bridge the gapbetween the ancient world and the modern era by reinterpreting medieval Byzantium as amanifestation of Hellenism during the Middle Ages, Konstantinos Paparrhigopoulos wrote the firsthistory of Greece as an unbroken continuity (Herkl Milas, Yunan Ulusunun Douu, Istanbul:letiim, 1994, pp. 54-55.) Tourkokratiadoes not occupy a favored place in the course of nationalistBalkan historiography. Only recently has the Ottoman period begun to be explored by a new

generation of historians using Ottoman sources.52 See Chapter 3.1.5, A remark on non-Muslims and Muslims before the end of the eighteenthcentury.


34/311

15

as administrative centers, were located in more central positions.53The Patriarchate,

situated in Fener [Phanari] since the beginning of the seventeenth century, should

thus be considered as a part of the urban structure of Istanbul, influencing and being

influenced by that citys networks of people and communication.54Far from being a

static institution, the Patriarchate should be considered as an entity encompassing

laypeople and clergy, as well as forming a part of various social networks. Not just

an object of Ottoman administration, or an apparatus of the tax-collection system, the

Patriarchate should be considered an active subject in the urban setting of the

imperial City.

The history of the Patriarchate during the Ottoman period did not simply

follow a straight line of growth or decadence, but rather experienced various ups and

downs. What is crucial is to determine the factors behind these ups and downs. For

this purpose, different dynamics in the making of Ottoman policies regarding the

Patriarchate of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will be examined.

Investigation of Ottoman policies towards the Patriarchate is not meant to

in any way imply that the Patriarchate was not a part of the Ottoman administration.

On the contrary, one of the major results of this thesis comes from research on

Patriarchal documents regarding the Patriarchal berts, which demonstrate that the

Ottoman administration considered the Patriarchate to be a part of its administrative

53For the issue of ascetic renunciation and monasteries versus churches as administrative buildings,see Caroline T. Schroeder, A Suitable Abode for Christ: The Church Building as Symbol of AsceticRenunciation in Early Monasticism, Church History73/3, 2004, pp. 472-521.54 The first Patriarchal Church during the Ottoman period was the Church of the Holy Apostles[Havariyyun Kilisesi], allotted to Gennadios. When the Sultan wanted to build his mosque andcomplex of Fatih on this spot, a new Church, the Church of Panagia Pammakaristos, was given to thePatriarchate in 1456. Pammakaristos was turned into a mosque [Fethiye Camii] in 1586, and theChurch of the Virgin Mary of Vlahsaray in Fener became the new Patriarchal center. Afterwards, theChurch of St. Dimitrios in Xyloporta [Ayvansaray] was used by the Patriarchate from 1597 on.

Finally, the Church of St. George in Fener became the Patriarchal Church at the beginning of theseventeenth century and is still in use today. Aristeidis Pasadaios, O Patriachikos Oikos touOikomenikou Thronou, Salonica: Institute of Balkan Studies, 1976.


35/311

16

body; for example, the berts secured the rights of the Patriarchs vis--vis the

Christian clergy and subjects.

Finally, a note on the terms defining the Patriarchate is necessary. In this

dissertation, I will refer to the Patriarchate as the Rum Orthodox Patriarchate of

Istanbul, as a translation of stanbul Rum Patrikhanesi, which was the usage of

Ottoman documents of the eighteenth century. The translation of Rumas Greek is

not free from problems inasmuch as the terms Greek and Turk (for the Rum

Orthodox and Ottomans, respectively) are embedded with a nineteenth-century

Western viewpoint. The term Ecumenical, on the other hand, was used in

documents written in the Greek language among the internal correspondence of the

Patriarchate.55The official seals of the Patriarchs had inscriptions in both Ottoman

and Greek. For example, on Kyrillos V Karakalloss seal is found bende patrik-i

Rum Kirilos Kostantiniyye, surrounded by the Greek inscription Kyrillos eleo

theou Archipiskopos Konstantinoupoleos Neas Romis Oikoumenikos Patriarchis

[Kyrillos, by the grace of God Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome,

Ecumenical Patriarch].56

1.3. Structure

After the introductory chapter, the second chapter will look at the early

period of the Patriarchate until the seventeenth century. I will examine the rights and

55For example, in a Patriarchalsigillionof 1681 of Patriarch Iakovos, the Patriarchs title is Iakovoseleo theou archiepiskopos Konstantinoupoleos Neas Romis kai oikoumenikos Patriarchis (NikolaosB. Tomadakis, Istoria tis Ekklisias Kritis epi Tourkokratias (1645-1898), Athens: TypografeionIordanou Myrtidi, 1974, p. 288). In another sigillion dated 1706, it is Gabriel eleo theou

archiepiskopos Konstantinoupoleos Neas Romis kai oikoumenikos Patriarchis (Tomadakis, Istoria,p. 291).56See Appendix B.


36/311

17

privileges of the Patriarchs in this period based on Greek contemporary sources and a

number of published documents, with a discussion on the authenticity of the

documents. Subsequently, the fiscal obligations of the Patriarchate to the Imperial

Treasury and the revenues of the Patriarchate and the local clergy at this period will

be discussed. The second section of Chapter II will deal with the actors who were

influential in events concerning the Patriarchate prior to the eighteenth century.

These are the archons, the Catholics and the Protestants, and finally the northern

Orthodox, i.e.the Russians and the Cossacks. This is because the relationships of the

Patriarchs to these actors were determinant in the events of the turbulent first half of

the seventeenth century. Subsequently, based on the account of Galland, the events

of 1672-3 will be mentioned as a convenient case showing the interaction between

these actors and the Patriarchs. The following section, narrating events from 1638 to

1657, i.e.the execution of three Patriarchs and an ex-Patriarch, is mainly based on

contemporary Greek accounts, and less on Ottoman chronicles. The reason for this is

that chronicles and Ottoman archives are silent on these events, which can be found

only in Western secondary sources and primary Greek accounts, except for one

particular case.

In order to contextualize the transformation of the Patriarchate in the

eighteenth century within its Ottoman background, I will open Chapter III with an

overview of certain Ottoman realities of the eighteenth century, e.g. the

transformation of the military and fiscal system of the Empire beginning from the

earlier period, the rise of the Portes bureaucracy and the socially mobile atmosphere

of the period. As petitions are one of the main sources of this study, I will look at the

nature of petitioning in this period. Subsequently, based on recent studies, I will

present some remarks on the nature of the relationship between Muslims and non-


37/311

18

Muslims in Ottoman society before the end of the eighteenth century. In the second

section of Chapter III, the actors of the eighteenth century will be presented. The first

part of this section will reveal the Patriarchate as part of a financial and social

network in Ottoman society. Subsequently, the place of the Phanariots in the

Ottoman taxation system and their position as intermediaries will be examined.

Finally, the situation of the Catholics, who were active in the Empire beginning in

the seventeenth century, and the change in attitude of the Patriarchate and the Porte

towards Catholics in the eighteenth century will be presented. In the third section of

Chapter III, I will present the transformation of the rights and privileges of the

Patriarchs, based on a detailed study of the stipulations of nineteen Patriarchal berts

dating from 1714 to 1769. This section aims to present the changing role of the

patriarch in eighteenth-century Ottoman society. The fourth section of Chapter III

deals with changes in the finances of the Patriarchate from 1686 to the 1760s, based

on thus far unused Ottoman documents.

Chapter IV is a case study presenting a portrait of one rather interesting

Patriarch, Kyrillos Karakallos. In this chapter, I will attempt to uncover what the

story of Karakallos a story which has so far attracted the attention of theologians

signifies in terms of Ottoman conditions. I will look at how the patriarch dealt with

his rival metropolitans, with financial problems, with the guilds of the capital, and

with the Portes administration.

In Chapter V, a major transformation in the structure of the Patriarchate

from the 1740s to the 1760s will be examined: the Reform of the Synod, i.e.the

establishment of the Gerondismos. This was an important development on behalf of

the Patriarchate, at the end of which the corporate identity of the Patriarchate vis--

visthe Porte was ultimately recognized.


38/311

19

Finally, Chapter VII is an attempt to re-examine the annexations of the

Patriarchates of Peand Ohrid to the Rum Orthodox Patriarchate of Istanbul in 1766

and 1767. In this chapter, as in the previous chapter on the Gerondismos, I will

question the role thus far attributed by historiography to the Phanariots, primarily in

the light of new documentation.

1.4. Sources

Thepiskopos muktaasregisters of the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archive

provides the basic archival source for this study. Thepiskoposlukkalemiwas a part

of theEvmir-i Mliye Kalemi. These are available in three classifications: theKamil

Kepeci Tasnificontains approximately 35, while the Bb-Defter Defter Katalou

(1169-1250 / 1756-1834) contains ten defters. The third classification (D.PSK)

contains 31 folders of documents dating from 1016 to 1207 (1607-1792).57 The

documents concern not only the Rum Orthodox Patriarchate of Istanbul but also the

Armenian Patriarchate, the Orthodox Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria,

Antioch, Pe and Ohrid. In his seminal articles Ottoman Archival Materials on

Millets and The Status of the Orthodox Patriarch, nalck mentions and refers to

the piskopos muktaas registers.58 Apart from the piskopos muktaas registers,

various ahkm,ikyet, mhimmeand kalebendregisters have also been used for this

study. The berts of Patriarchs and metropolitans, as well as the petitions of not only

57Although the first document in the D.PSK collection was catalogued as 1015/1606, it seems thatthis date is wrong, as the document is a petition signed by Kallinikos the Patriarch (Kallinikos II:1688, 1689-1693, 1694-1702). The second document is dated 1016/1607, and the followingdocuments start from 1046/1636 onwards. Cezar notes that the piskopos kalemi was a part of themaden kalemi during the period of Grand Vizier Ali Paas reforms, which were reverted. Yavuz

Cezar, XVIII. yyda Bab-Defteri,Dn ve Bugnyle Toplum ve Ekonomi IV, 1993, p. 152.58 Halil nalck, Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets, in Christians and Jews in the OttomanEmpire, ed. Braude and Lewis, Vol. I, Holmes and Meier, New York and London: 1982, pp. 437-449.


39/311


40/311

21

in the first half of the twentieth century, relying on Patriarchal archives. These

sources were produced at a time of conflict between the Porte and the Patriarchate on

ecclesiastical privileges, as was explained above. In spite of this, Gedeon and

Arabatzoglous research has been invaluable for this study. Apart from works based

on these official documents, various Greek chronicles and contemporary testimonies

have also been used,61the major one being Hypsilantiss Ta meta tin Alosin, regarded

as the peak of Phanariot historiography.62

Chronicles in the Ottoman and Greek languages, reports of ambassadors,

and Ottoman archival documents present completely different facets of the same

stories. In matters concerning the stance of the Patriarchate towards theological

issues, such as the issue of anabaptism, the Patriarchate has generally been

considered an entity existing in a vacuum. In order to situate the history of the

Patriarchate in the Ottoman context, the major tool in this study will be the

multiplicity of sources complementing each other.

One difficulty of chronicles and manuscripts is that they sometimes tend to

present relationships in terms of bribery and the venality of offices. While

intermediaries did play a role in accession to thrones, they were not the sole factors

in this regard.63

61

Athanasios Komnenos Hypsilantis, Ta meta tin Alosin (1453-1789), ed. Archim. G. Afthonidos,1870 (reprinted in Athens: 1972). The major contemporary source for the period of Karakallos was theanonymous Planosparaktis published in Papadopoullos, Studies and Documents, pp. 275-364.Another source is Sergios Makraioss Ypomnimata Ekklisiastikis Istorias (1750-1800) in KontsantinosSathas (ed),Mesaioniki Bibliothiki, Vol. III, Venice: Typois tou Chronou, 1872, including KaisariosDapontes Chronografos (1648-1707)and his Istorikos Katalogos (1700-1784). (For Chronografos,Paizi-Apostolopoulou writes that Dapontes was aware of an unpublished manuscript by DimitriosRamadanis. See Machi Paizi-Apostolopoulou, Dimitrios Ramadanis: Enas Istoriografos tou 18ouAiona se Afaneia, O Eranistis 20, 1995, pp. 20-35). The ecclesiastical history of Meletios, themetropolitan of Athens, Georgios Ventotis (ed.),Ekklesiastiki Istria Meletiou, 4 Vols, Vienna: 1783,1784, 1795. It was edited and increased in content by Ventotis. See Chapter IV, fn.6. Another accountuseful for ecclesiastical history is that of K.M. Koumas, Istriai ton Anthropinon Praxeon, Vol. 10,Vienna: 1831.62

Johann Strauss, The Rise of Non-Muslim Historiography in the Eighteenth Century, in OrientoModerno, The Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century, Kate Fleet (ed.), p. 226.63On ascending to the throne, it was not only the Rums who paidpeke, nor was it only the Porte to


41/311

22

In contemporary accounts, the position of the author, and consequently the

source of information, have influenced the tone of the accounts. Western travelers

whether Catholic or Protestant recording their observations on Eastern Christians

under Turkish rule have a contemptuous point of view towards the Orthodox

Church. In search of the remnants of ancient Greek civilization, they were

disappointed by Greek-speaking subjects eastern modes of behavior, which they

scorned. In this sense, they perceived it as a sacred duty to unite the Orthodox

Church to their own Church.64 As a result of this position, the typical attitude of

western observers as well as Greek historians towards the office of the patriarch was

to consider it an object of simony. Greek ecclesiastical histories provide

chronological information on the biographies and deeds of Patriarchs. They

frequently mention bribes and money as the reason for the change in the throne. If a

contemporary author was from inside the Ottoman Porte, such as Hypsilantis,65the

explanation for this is based on complex personal relationships. Hypsilantis reveals

the personal links of Patriarchs as a way to access the Patriarchal throne. On the

other hand, Ottoman chronicles very rarely provide us with direct information

whom money was paid. The high clergy paid the Patriarchate as well. On March 15, 1681,Athanasios, the metropolitan of Christianoupolis in Peloponessos, borrowed money from thedikaiophylaxRhales 420 aslaniato pay for his gift of ordination to the Patriarchate. The promissorynote was signed by the Patriarch Iakovos I and the other metropolitans. Nomikos Michael Vaporis,Some Aspects of the History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Seventeenth and

Eighteenth Centuries: A Study of the Ziskind MS No.22 of the Yale University Library, USA: 1969,pp. 53-54.64For example, Tournefort, who visited the Aegean islands and Istanbul around 1700, notes on manyoccasions that Greek priests were illiterate and that Greeks devoid of missionary education wereignorant and superstitious (Stefanos Yerasimos (ed.), Tournefort Seyahatnamesi, stanbul: KitapYaynevi, 2005, p. 122, p. 177). From the commission of the French ambassador Nointel, theillustrator William Joseph Grelot recorded his personal observations of the Ottoman Empire. Hisaccount also has a scornful point of view towards Orthodox subjects, as well as towards the Muslimsof the Empire. (Joseph Grelot,A Late Voyage to Constantinople, London: 1683.)65Athanasios Komninos Hypsilantis (1696-1789) claimed that he descended from Emperor ManuelKomnenos. He studied in Iasi from 1724 to 1727, went to Venice in 1734, and became a medicaldoctor in Padua in 1738. He was the doctor of Gregory Ghica at Iasi until 1744, and from 1744onwards he was the doctor of Grand Vizier Ragb Paa. He was also the Grand Skevophylax of the

Patriarchate. Nicolae Iorga, Byzantium after Byzantium, Iasi, Portland: Center for Romanian Studiesand Romanian Institute of International Studies, 2000, pp. 227-230. Strauss, The Rise of Non-Muslim Historiography, pp. 226-229.


42/311

23

concerning the Patriarchs. They have been used in this study as points of reference,

especially to verify the accounts of travelers, memoir writers and other chroniclers.66

66Mehmet pirli (ed.), Tarih-i Naima (1000-1070/ 1592-1660), 4 Vols, Ankara: TTK, 2007; ZiyaYlmazer (ed.), Topular Katibi Abdlkadir (Kadri) Efendi Tarihi (1000-1054 / 1592-1644), Ankara:TTK, 2003; Vahid ubuk (ed.), Solakzade Tarihi (Mehmet Hemdemi elebi Solakzade), Ankara:Kltr Bakanl Yaynlar, 1989; Mesut Aydner (ed.), Subhi Tarihi, stanbul: Kitabevi, 2008;Abdlkadir zcan, Zbde-i Vekayit: Tahlil ve Metin (1066-1116/1656-1704) / Defterdar SarMehmed Paa, Ankara: TTK, 1995; Fezleke-i Katip elebi, stanbul: Ceride-i Havadis Matbaas

1286-1287 (1869-1871); FndkllSilahdar Mehmed Aa, Silahdar Tarihi, stanbul: Devlet Matbaas,1928; Sleyman zzi, Tarih-i zzi, (1157-1165, 1744-1752), stanbul: Mteferrika Matbaas,1199/1784; Tarih-i Raid, stanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1282.


43/311

24

CHAPTER II

THE PATRIARCHATE UP TO 1700

2.1. THE INSTITUTION

2.1.1. Jurisdiction

Mehmed II initiated a new period of the Patriarchate of Istanbul by

appointing Gennadios as the first patriarch in 1454. As was mentioned in the

introduction, the scope of the privileges of Gennadios granted in the fifteenth century

were intensely discussed in the following centuries, as the privileges of patriarchs

were perceived as the basis of the rights of Ottoman Orthodox laypeople and clergy.1

The rights and privileges of a patriarch or a metropolitan as is true for

other owners of bert like an imam, a mltezim or a vezir is recorded in their

berts, given upon accession to office. These are documents of authorization granted

1For the historiographical discussion on the privileges of patriarchs and the motivations behind thesediscussions see the Chapter 1.1, Literary Review.


44/311

25

by the dvn- hmyn kalemi.2 Upon arrival in office and in the case of cls-

hmyn [accession of a new sultan to the throne], the berts of patriarchs and

metropolitans, like those of all other officials, were renewed.3nalck underlines the

importance of berts as a sign of the Ottoman official appointment of non-Muslim

clergymen and a pre-requisite to exercise authority.4 Konortas also stresses that

berts granted administrative rights to Christian clergymen.5The patriarch needed a

bertin order to validate his office in the eyes of Ottoman officials. It is crucial to

study patriarchs berts in order to be able to make a full comment on the status of

the Christian high clergy in the Ottoman Empire.

Thus far, very few patriarchal berts covering the period from the fifteenth

to the eighteenth century have been published.6These are the berts of Symeon I

(1483, published in Ottoman and in Greek translation)7, Ieremias I (1525, published

in Ottoman and in Greek translation),8 Dionysios III9 (1662, exists only in Greek

translation), Dionysios IV10 (date not clear, and only in French and a Greek

translation of the French), Kyrillos V (1755, in Greek translation)11, Serafeim II

2Mehmet Zeki Pakaln, OsmanlTarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Szl, (3rd ed.), Vol. I, stanbul: MilliEitim Basmevi, 1983, p. 205, Lajos Fekete, Bert,EI 2, Vol I, pp. 1170-1171.3For example, upon the clsof Sultan Mahmud I in 1143/1730, the berts of the metropolitans ofMarmara, Kayseriye, Sofya, Brusa and Gemlik, Girid, Midilli, zi, Sakz, Kapda, skee andKavala, Drama, Selanik and others were renewed. See D. PSK 9.4nalck, The Status, pp. 206-207; Halil nalck, The Appointment Procedure of a Guild Warden(Ketkhud), in Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Des Morgenlandes76, Festschrift Andreas Tietze,

1986, pp. 138-139.5Konortas, Exelixi, p. 261.6Paraskevas Konortas, Othomanikes Theoriseis gia to Oikoumeniko Patriarcheio: 17os- arches 20ouAiona, Athens: Ekdoseis Alexandreia, 1998, pp. 57-58. Konortas lists 14 patriarch berts, 7 of thembeing prior to the 19th century.7Zachariadou,Deka Tourkika, pp. 160-162.8Zachariadou,Deka Tourkika, pp. 177-178.9 Konortas, Othomanikes Theoriseis, p. 57. The bert is published in Manuel Gedeon, EpisimaGrammata Tourkika, Konstantinoupoli: Patriarchikou Typografeiou, 1910, pp. 9-14 (only in Greek).10 The French text is in Jean Aymon, Monumens authentiques de la religion des Grecs, et de lafausset de plusieurs confessions de foi des Chrtiens orientaux, La Haye: 1708, pp. 486. The Greektranslation of Aymon is in Gedeon, Episima Grammata, pp. 98-99. The bertof Dionysios IV waspublished first by Aymon in French and in Greek by Gedeon, and therefore the translation misses

many points.11This was referred to as the bertof 1754 by Konortas due to the date of the clsof 1754. Thebertwas issued in 1755. A Greek translation of the text is in Gedeon,EpisimaGrammata, pp. 76-86.


45/311

26

(1757 in Ottoman and in Greek translation)12, and Neofytos VII13(1789, in French

translation).14

Kenanolu, in order to provide evidence for the forgery of the two

patriarchal berts of Symeon and Ieremias published by Zachariadou, proposes that,

in earlier berts, places under the jurisdiction of the patriarchs were not r